stercus tauri

Fixed it.

From the conservative Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/essay/the-wall-the-real-costs-of-a-barrier-between-the-united-states-and-mexico/

Investigation says none. http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/02/politics/justice-department-trump-tower-wiretap/index.html

$2.28 East Cobb.

Really good news!

Not if there is a signed consent. He always only did it for minor things like splinters, cysts or things like that. He would block face and name, too. Sound never included name.

Oh, no! Hope she gets to feeling better.

Pointing out the few to excuse the many.

One of the doctors in the ER where I am sometimes work will sometimes video simple procedures and put them on youtube. Youtube has stopped him from doing that because the policy has changed because of the content and all his videos have been removed. Sad because it was educational.

All gone. http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/citing-trump-remarks-presidents-arts-council-quits-49295455

Not in an election year. Soon. It will change. The demographics are changing every day.

I wasn't going to mention that you're not following along with the discussion but you went there. The point is that majority agree that national monuments should remain because those are inherently different than those monuments to Southern Civil War leaders. Huge difference. The chart you referenced in post number 63 clearly shows the way people feel about Confederate monuments and equating those with national leader monuments are completely different, and that is the point I was making. I see now you're referencing two different things.

What? Only 48% disapprove. How is that an "overwhelming majority"???? 30% approve and 22% could go either way. That is hardly "overwhelming."

So who brought up race? Why is there race baiting at all? Not odd at all and I really don't see this as about race. Nor is it an "overwhelming majority" when nearly a quarter of the total population and 40% of blacks have no opinion, meaning they could go either way. And 49% approve or strongly approve of removal. Again, your point?

Yes, really. Yeah, I mean look at the poll and see where Republicans and whites stand. Kinda scary, right?

And the point? Why are you trying to make this about race? 30% of the total want the statues removed and 22% have no opinion. The point?

Very interesting.

2010 law. Who supported this? What groups were in favor of it? And what was the underlying reason for this law? Was it to an "up yours" to people who were against racism? Was it an overt attempt to say we are a racist state? Valid questions.

Who is being supported by the KKK and White Nationalists today? Your statement makes no sense because the history of groups and sections and positions have changed over the years. Then there shouldn't be a problem with putting it in a museum, right?

But not all were erected with private funds. Even so, it is now a public task to fix the problem of honoring segregation. Overwhelmingly, the majority were erected during Jim Crow as an "up yours" to the US when we were expanding the idea of civil rights. I surely don't want to be on the same side as the segregationalists. http://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/politics/a12015570/confederate-monuments/ Trump said the same thing.

Local and state taxpayers paid to erect those emblems of hate in the first place.

I do know that your position is the same as that of the Southern Slaveholders when arguing that it would cost too much to get rid of slavery. Cost to remediate a moral issue shouldn't be a wall.

This is called a strawman, where you set up an intentionally misrepresented proposition because it is easier to defeat than the real argument. Trying to equate the argument to remove statues of men devoted to rebellion against the US and maintaining the institution of slavery once it became a moral choice is downright stupid. Stick to the issue at hand because your "point" is indefensible. Will there be people who call for the statues of Washington to come down? Sure! There are now and have been for decades. Are those the same substantive issue? Of course not. Or maybe it is an example o

I wonder how many poor kids they could have sent to college for the proposed increase in the defense budget to blow the entire world up 3 more times over? Please don't feign caring about the poor kids and paying for college when we all know that is laughable considering the other positions regarding helping the poor you've advocated cutting. And he is wrong. That is not the point of correcting the problem with emblems that are solitary in standing for hate. You're missing the point.

Pray for Barcalona.